wOw’s Question of the Week

Michele Bachmann: could she be a contender?

Many people in the “mainstream” press have been impressed by Michele Bachmann’s recent debate appearances and announcement strategy. Do you think she is a viable contender for the Republican presidential nomination?

Candice Bergen: The woman is unfortunately a force to be reckoned with. My friend Carol and my husband and I were talking about her last night. Wondering how it is humanly possible to have four or five kids of her own and then mother twenty-three more and still look like she got back from a spa. She presents herself better and better. Even deals with her gaffes adroitly. I am slightly afraid.

Liz Smith: Mrs. Bachmann is good-looking, has some excellent stuff in her resume, and has astounded everybody in sight. But I think the Obama administration would like nothing better than to have her run against their record. She is a gold-plated idiot, and what she is aspiring to for the Republican Party is downright crazy, dangerous and might even be called “unpatriotic,” should she get away with any of it.

Joan Juliet Buck: She is not a viable contender — but in this country that doesn’t mean she is not a viable contender.

Joan Ganz Cooney: Bachmann is certainly a viable presidential contender in the Republican parry because she embodies its fixed beliefs and she has been handling herself well (thanks in part to hiring a skilled, campaign manager, Ed Rollins.) Since, however, the Republicans aren’t crazy, they will probably nominate Romney for president (reluctantly) and he will select Bachmann as the v.p. candidate.  Be afraid. Be very afraid.

54 Responses so far.

  1. avatar KarenR says:

    The Minnesotans I know (none from her district) find her embarrassing.

    I don’t think any others would put her on the ticket as VP. I’m sure they learned after watching McCain’s effort implode.

    • avatar Miss Lee says:

      I live in the district that is just south of hers.  I have long thought of her as a joke but now I am becoming very afraid that she does have a chance at the VP spot. She belongs to a Christian church that is well know of its extreme views and it has long been rumored that they do “re-education” of young, gay men.  It is only a matter of time before someone will come out of the shadows and tell exactly what they are up to.  It won’t be pretty.  These are very dark, scary people with bright, shinny faces.  Ascendance of their world view would lead to many of us to second class status or worse.

      • avatar D C says:

        I recently read a story about how Bachman’s husband runs these re-education camps … or shall we call them what them what they really are — concentration campus.  I may be wrong, but my gut feeling on this is that Dr. Bachman was born a homosexual and is living a heterosexual life in denial of his true identity.  I guess you’d say he’s “passing”. 

        Of course, that has nothing to do with her viability as a candidate.  What goes on behind the closed doors of a marriage is none of our business.  Oh… wait… I forgot!  We are Americans, so it really IS our business (or so many would have us believe). 

        Michelle Bachman cannot represent all of America because she despises so much of America. 

  2. avatar phyllis Doyle Pepe says:

    Bachmann’s foray into the adoption thingy has been highly exaggerated. The number of girls, supposedly unwed mothers although none seemed to be pregnant, took place in less than ten years. Her claim that she “raised” 24 foster children is bogus. These girls, only two at a time, stayed with the Bachmanns’ for a few months up to nine months, hardly enough time to do all that raising. Since the records have been destroyed, we cannot verify accurately, but we do have first hand knowledge from people who knew her and family.

    Michelle is a skilled politician and she speaks to her base in couched language they understand–––similar to Bush when he’d use religious connotations in his speeches. What she is advocating is a country where there is no separation between church and state, where the government is severely limited except when it isn’t and looms large in bedrooms, women’s uteruses, and all things fetal. The question for our lady of the tea bag is whether she can reach further than just her base. Since this seems to be the era of political looney tunes, it wouldn’t surprise me one little bit if she got the nomination, but the Republican party, defunct as it seems to be, will try its damnnest to see that that won’t happen.

  3. avatar Barbara says:

    I agree with Candice, Julia, Joan Juliet and Joan. It is frightening to me that so many in this country are enamored with this woman. I respect those who have different outlooks but I want my political leaders to at least show knowledge, integrity and common sense. I find Michele Bachmann lacking in all of these.

  4. avatar Pam Nielsen says:

    I unfortunately live in her Congressional District here in Minnesota, the 6th it is.  She has not done an adequate or favorable job in representing this district, in fact losing most the precincts here in her “hometown” as well as others in the southern portion of the district.  The remainder of the district is distinctly blue collar, religiously and socially conservative and more than a little ignorant of how government at all levels actually works.  I’d venture to say they are atuned “religiously” to their cable and satellite systems daily being brainwashed into believing all the lies and misinformation disseminated in that horrid aray of media frenzy.  I do think certain democratic leaders would relish it if she were to be the candidate chosen by the right-wing/tea partier factions to run against Obama.  But, I think she could be a dangerous candidate, too, and if conditions fall their way, she may just have a chance to pull it off.  Then, you all can watch the demise of the country as we know it. 

  5. avatar Kathy says:

    Whoa, guys.  You are allowing your views of her politics to get in the way of your assessment of her abilities, which is what you hammered the GOP for doing to Obama.  Bachmann has more years of national elected service than did our current President when he was elected.  And if you view the details of her service – both public and private – it’s damned impressive.  I don’t agree with her politics or many of her social stances, but I have to hand it to her, she has worked her tail off for what she believes in.  Her “gaffes” are no more than the average public figure whose every comment is publicized, especially if it comes out wrong.  Regarding her foster care service, it’s exactly what she’s said it was – young, troubled girls who could not be placed elsewhere stayed with her family for months at a time – two or three at a time.  And if you think that’s easy, try it.  It’s called theraputic foster care, and it’s the toughest there is. 

    • avatar KarenR says:

      That’s great but I suspect most informed voters have had enough of intractable ideologues in office. When assessing candidates I consider the ability to negotiate and compromise, regardless of core beliefs, as imperatives. To me that’s fundamental to successful politicians and it’s sorely lacking these days.

    • avatar phyllis Doyle Pepe says:

      @Kathy: “..Whoa, guys. You are allowing your views of her politics to get in the way of your assessment of her abilities…”
      No, some of us recognize her abilities––I mentioned her skill as a politician––and our assessment, if negative, IS exactly because of her politics, her “constitutional conservative” message as she coins it. Having, as you have stated, years of national service, has nothing to do with our assessment of her message. I agree that she seems to be a hard worker and has fought hard for what she believes in, but again, that is not relevant in our concerns. Her “gaffes” signal a personal evaluation of history which she refuses to correct when pointed out how wrong and I find that troubling. Finally, your “Regarding her foster care service, it’s exactly what she’s said it was…” No, she has said numerous times, she “raised” 24 foster children. This is incorrect, as I posted above. My information came from a long article in the Minnesota Gazette and other sources (not sure if that’s the name of the paper) that did extensive research on this. I don’t doubt it was difficult, and I applaud her efforts, but embellishment of these efforts is what we used to call gilding the lily. But again, it don’t mean diddly squat as to how she is being assessed by progressives or others, for that matter. It’s laudable, however, that she has a friend like you.

    • avatar jamie spence says:

      Well-said! Nice to see someone give a fair-minded, intelligent response.

  6. avatar Belinda Joy says:

    She is not a viable candidate. And those that view her as being a viable option, show their inability to separate party loyalty from truly wanting the “best” candidate for president.

    She reminds me very much of Palin in that she is polarizing. She is moving through the process of running for president in a vacuum. She is speaking to her base and her base alone. On those very few exceptions when she does speak to the media (outside of Fox) we see a woman that is bias and lacking even the most rudimentary knowledge of US history or laws.

    Bachmann (and her husband) have talked themselves into a corner that I don’t see her getting out of. That being her strong anti-Gay and anti-Latino statements. She (and her spouse) have made some truly sickening comments and shown that their beliefs are narrow minded. And for anyone that says we can not hold Michelle responsible for her husband’s beliefs, as many have countered, “who do you think she is talking to every night?”  She has not said she doesn’t disagree with him.

    One gets the sense from Michelle Bachmann that what we are witnessing is not pure. What I mean by that is the financial improprieties, the homophobic ideology, her ideas about minorities, her lack of any true understanding or knowledge about our government – (even though she is a part of it) – points to the fact she isn’t a viable choice. For the Republicans to even remotely consider her would be foolish on their part.

    We learned by way of Palin that it isn’t always about a popularity contest. There has to be some substance behind the attractive packaging. As I have said many, many times, I love politics and I love a good debate. However, you have to have two sides to debate and right now the Republicans don’t have a strong voice to speak for their beliefs and concerns. 

    We have entered a sad state of affairs when a woman is hailed as being the best of the best at a Republican debate simply because she made the least flubs. If that is the benchmark the Republicans are using to choose their candidate to go up against Barack Obama, as I have said for the last 2 1/2 years, get ready for a 2nd term for President Obama.      

  7. avatar Maggie W says:

    Michele does okay as long as she sticks to script.  However, just like Sarah Palin, she is incapable of doing so.  Ask either woman about the weather, and she will start off by telling you about the Ice Age and will then get that all screwed up. 

  8. avatar Count Snarkula says:

    That woman, much like the Palin woman scares the Count. Because no matter how pretty the package, no matter how shiny and bright the smile; hatred, homophobia, and bigotry are still ugly as hell.

  9. avatar Jody says:

    Ack! The fact that we are even talking about this bugs me….
    It’s time to raise the bar!
    Why are we considering people like this “viable” at all???

  10. avatar Chris Glass` says:

    Michele Bachmann is against paying workers a minimum wage saying that to pay less will stimulate the economy. This is not the kind of person that we need leading any major office. She is already aligning herself with corporate America to help turn hapless hourly workers into third world slaves – grateful for any wage they can get while management gets fatter. She will never get my vote.

  11. avatar Bonnie O says:

    Michelle Bachmann is a skilled politican and when she made her announcement at the GOP New Hampshire debate she fell many other male Republicans in the process.  She is, indeed, a viable candidate.   Reading all the comments above has brought a smile to my face.   Another woman in the GOP who is breaking bearers and who is not tied to the Democratic Party by any strings … political or apron.  Michelle is a woman over 50 who is not afraid of shunning or disagreeing with many women who in previous decades began touting their own beliefs as the only political beliefs of the American woman.   They claimed the right to speak for all American women which was a right they did not earn nor have.  The dissing of GOP female politicans is now a non-event.  Sarah took the first blows and Michelle will certainly take a good many, too.  But she is a viable candidate no matter how many here disagree.   Is she electable?  That, unfortunately,  is another question.

    • avatar Count Snarkula says:

      @Bonnie O. Agreed. Previous candidates have taken many groups for granted. Not just women. You sound as though you admire that Bachman woman. My question to you is; Where does that leave me and my people should she be a viable candidate and be elected? I have no intent or desire to attend her husband’s “re-programming” for homosexuals. I am not a homosexual. I am a gay man. I have worked hard to accept who I am, no knocking under the airport restroom stall, no hiring hookers, just worked through it to become, accept, and admire who I am. I am a gay man. I don’t need re-teaching. Thoughts? Really want to hear more from you because you are not hateful. You are an intelligent commentator.

      • avatar Bonnie O says:

        Count Snarkula –  As a personal comment I am very pleased for you that you are no longer searching for an idenity, sexual or otherwise.  And I do thank you for your compliment and comment that you realize that though I write in the minority I do not write hateful thoughts about anyone because of their chromosomal makeup.

        I will answer your question but I must admit that I know little of Marcus Bachmann so I did a little google searching.  I never heard of the “reprogramming” remark and found nothing substantial in my search.  David Graham wrote in that Mr. Bachmann was supposed to have made a derogatory comment liking a gay person to a “barbarian”.  No context or source was noted.   The reprogramming comment was found in but was said only to be “rumored”.   However, I do think there might be some truth in thinking that Mr. Bachmann finds fault with being gay.  Yet, at his Christian retreat he is quoted as saying (in the article) that all “homosexuals (yes he uses that term) are welcomed to discuss their sexual idenity and if they leave the retreat still content with their idenity then he is find with that discovery.

        This issue is undoubtedly of utmost important to you …. that I can understand.  However, I cannot conceive of an America where anyone would be required to attend a reprogramming event no matter the subject.   I do think that sort of rhetortic falls in the fearmongering category.  And there is a lot of fearmongering occurring within both political parties.

        As for Michelle Bachmann I cannot say I am supporting her candidacy but I am pleased that she has entered the race.  She has a lot of moxie.  She stood up on that stage in New Hampshire and she almost stole the debate.  I think she surprised many in the GOP and she is now being viewed with more respect and perhaps with some delight.  She is the leader of the members of the Tea Party who are leaning towards the GOP.  She speaks well to the Indpendents.  She is raising money fast.  And she can and will raise money for other GOP candidates which will give her even more respect within the party. No matter what happens in the future, she will remain a force within Republican ranks as long as she holds public office.

        However, I do want to add that any candidate for the GOP nomination who speaks disparaging of gays or any other group of Americans should not win the nomination because they surely could not win the election.

        • avatar phyllis Doyle Pepe says:

          In the statehouse, Bachmann made opposition to same-sex marriage her signature issue. Both she and her husband, by all accounts her most trusted political adviser, believe that homosexuality can be cured. Speaking to a Christian radio station about gay teenagers last year, Marcus, who treats gay people in his counseling practice, said, “Barbarians need to be educated. They need to be disciplined, and just because someone feels this or thinks this, doesn’t mean that we’re supposed to go down that road.”
          In 2004, Bachmann gave a speech warning that same-sex marriage would lead to schoolchildren being indoctrinated into homosexuality. She wanted everyone to know, though, that she doesn’t hate gay people. “Any of you who have members of your family in the lifestyle, we have a member of our family that is,” she said. “This is not funny. It’s a very sad life. It’s part of Satan, I think, to say that this is gay.”

          • avatar Count Snarkula says:

            @phyllis Doyle Pepe. You are accurate in the “Satan” remark and the “Barbarians” one also. The Count has a dear friend of his late Mere that lives in that district in Minnesota. She has had that Bachmann woman “on her radar” for a long time, and has passed on many quotes and reports on her and her husband long before she started receiving national attention. I have never seen (though it is rumored) where her husband publicly claims he was “cured” of his homosexuality. Though he is very flamboyant and fey, that does not necessarily translate to any proof he is indeed homosexual, “cured” or otherwise.

          • avatar phyllis Doyle Pepe says:

            @ My favorite snarky Count of all times: When persons of a certain disposition spend a great deal of time and energy denouncing persons of another disposition, you can bet your bottom dollar––and in these tough times, that dollar is indeed at the bottom––that their motivation is suspect. My money, in regards to Marcus, is on that he is harboring unfulfilled longings of a sexual nature and spends his energy trying to prevent others from having what he himself cannot. I like to think your late mother and her dear friend had many an interesting conversation over tea in the afternoon gossiping or as they probably would coin it, character analysis.

          • avatar Count Snarkula says:

            @phyllis Doyle Pepe – Thank you and I am honored to be one of your favorites. Of course, I have the exact same suspicions that you harbor. Time and time again that scenario is played out. In public. Karma, when fooled with, is indeed a tough taskmaster. This so reminds me of one of my Mere’s favorite and often used phrases (I wish I could show you the face and have you listen to the tone, but I bet you are savvy enough to envision it properly): “Oh, I don’t know Mrs. Bachmann. (pause for effect) But I’m sure she is a lovely person.”

        • avatar Count Snarkula says:

          @Bonnie O – I am constantly amazed at how well thought out and eloquent your comments are. Please continue, as you bring great value to this site. – The Count

          • avatar Bonnie O says:

            Count –  I’ve been around here a long time.  However, the website is now as it was in the beginning with only a voice or two offering a more Republican point of view.  During the last presidential election, the hyperbole from both sides was manifest to the nth degree and I do believe the founders wanted to change the focus of wowowow;  they have succeeded.

            I appreciate political commentary and well written points of view.  You write very well and I return your compliment that you bring value to the website.

    • avatar Lila says:

      Women candidates have always had a tough go of it.

      Palin was not the only one to take a few blows in the last campaign. For every “Caribou Barbie” of “VPILF” remark thrown in her direction, Hillary Clinton was insulted with comments about “cankles” or referred to as a “c**t.” While Palin was criticized for expensive clothing, Hillary was criticized for her pantsuits. Too often, the remarks about both women candidates were more about their suitability as arm candy, than their abilities or political positions.

      It does bug me, though, when any candidate speaks of “women’s issues” and “what women want” as if women are a monolithic block of identical opinions and desires. We are every bit as varied as men and it’s an insult not to be seen that way.

      • avatar Count Snarkula says:

        @Lila. You are certainly right about individuals being lumped under one group. Women have suffered with this for years. I also, do not appreciate being called one of “the Gays”.

  12. I’ve heard that her step-sister is gay and that Michele Bachmann is horrible to her. So if close family members aren’t planning on voting for her–the people who know her best–there’s no way she’s going to get my vote, either.

  13. avatar jamie spence says:

    I have to comment on all the remarks regarding the “re-education” of gays –

    First of all, they don’t go drag people in off the street, kicking and screaming, folks.

    The attendees choose to be there. Nobody is forcing them to attend!

    These are people who would prefer to live their lives as defined by their faith, rather than their sexuality. It is popular in our culture right now to behave as if your sexuality is the absolute, utter core of who you are. Your core is what YOU decide it will be. Some people choose for their core to be their faith in Christ. Some people choose another religion, some people choose a political ideology. And some people choose their sexuality.

    There are people who want to live their lives according their faith and really do not want to have same-sex attraction. This is not a “denial of who they are”. This is someone who is choosing to define themselves in the way they see fit. Your sexuality is just ONE component of who you are – it’s not the whole enchilada unless you make it so. And yes, unwanted same-sex attraction can be dealt with. I know several men personally who lived life at one time as active gay men but ultimately decided that is not what they wanted. One said something very interesting: “I thought I had to have an overwhelming lust for all women. I didn’t realize that God could give me intense desire for just the right woman. It has made all the difference.” Again, let me say I am talking about someone who is experiencing UNWANTED same-sex attraction. If you’re okay with it, then obviously there is no reason for you to participate in these sort of groups, is there?
    People choose who they are. They have that right.

    So anyway, please stop freaking out about ministries or groups that help those who WANT to be something other than homosexual. It is their choice to do that and it should be respected, too.

    • avatar Baby Snooks says:

      I think these same groups should offer the same counseling to those want to be something other than heterosexual.  I suspect there are quite a few.

      As for Michelle Bachmann and Minnesota as I recall there was a state legislator in Minnesota ten years ago who suggested that homoexuals who had been sent to the concentration camps in Nazi Germany should not have the right to compensation nor should the children of  homosexuals who died in the concentration camps because they weren’t really victims which caused a firestorm even among some who feared the ramifications of speaking out including the US Holocaust Musuem in Washington which perhaps believed that by ignoring it this legislator and his ilk would crawl back into the woodwork.

      Looks like ten years later one of them crawled back out of the woodwork.

  14. avatar careyvick says:





    • avatar Lila says:

      $1.00/gal gasoline is LONG gone, never to be seen again. This planet is past peak oil production, and China and India – together, a third of all the people on Earth – have booming growth and oil demand.

      We need to focus on shifting to renewable energy sources for energy security.

      • avatar Mahulda Fite says:

        “THe planet is past peak oil production”–Says who? Can you cite a study that confirms that fact? This is just patently false. There is plenty of oil, coal and gas.  The only problems are  a government which will not allow us to extract it and the current abilities to access.

        • avatar KarenR says:

          Either way the resources are finite. It’s best to conserve as much as possible while working to find renewable alternatives.

          • avatar Mahulda Fite says:

            Obviously everything on the planet is “finite”. There is a fixed amount of oxygen, a fixed amount of every element, but that does not mean that we need to control our breathing in order to “conserve oxygen”.  

          • avatar KarenR says:

            Oxygen is part of an ongoing gaseous conversion cycle. It is constantly being refreshed from the very carbon dioxide we exhale and that process occurs in a relatively short time span.

            The same cannot be said about fossil fuels. An oil reserve will not refresh itself in a human’s lifetime.

        • avatar Lila says:

          So say knowledgeable organizations like the International Energy Agency or the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security.

          Peak CRUDE oil production was 70 million bbl/day in 2006. That was the all-time high.

          This is not to be confused with aggregate oil production including coal-to-oil, liquefied natural gas and “unconventional oils.” That increased reliance on unconventional oils will also help to drive prices up. In 2009, oil cost about $60/bbl. Right now, oil is $93/bbl (in 2009 dollars). The IEA predicts that in 2035, oil prices will average about $113/bbl (in 2009 dollars). Roughly a 20% increase, before inflation.

          The IEA does not just look at oil. They look at total energy production and consumption. Interestingly, from their 2010 World Energy Outlook, there is this:

          “Renewable energy sources will have to play a central role in moving the world onto a more secure, reliable, and sustainable energy path.”

          Amen to that.

          • avatar Mahulda Fite says:

            Do you understand the difference between accessible or existing oil reserves or production?  “Peak production” has nothing to do with the amount of oil that still exists.  Production being at “an all time high” does not tell us anything about the amount still available.  You are assuming that because production and consumption are at peak levels that the “oil is running out”. This is a false assumption and one not based on fact.

          • avatar Lila says:

            Yes, I understand that. This is one of the security issues I have studied in a little detail.

            If everyone ramps up production tomorrow on every oil field, production increases and we would have a new “peak oil” for crude. And we have not yet hit “peak oil” for the aggregate. Depending on markets, that is predicted somewhere between 2020 and 2034 or so.

            Depending on markets. Peak oil production is driven by prices, which in turn are driven by the availability and accessibility of the remaining commodity. As prices go up – which they have been and will continue to do – demand is forced down, and nations and consumers increase efficiency and shift off to alternative energy supplies: nuclear, renewables, and fossil fuels other than oil. As demand is forced down, oil producers reduce production. This has been the pattern, and those who study it – CLOSELY – predict that there won’t be much incentive to exceed the 2006 crude peak.

            But – “demand is down” globally, does not mean competition for access to resources is down. Since production is down too, and developing countries have larger and larger energy needs, we will still be paying more and more at the pump. Sounds paradoxical, but that’s what has been happening.

          • avatar Lila says:

            Oh, PS. I never said “oil is running out.” But it is a finite resource, and we are using it, ergo, it IS.

            We will never extract all of the Earth’s oil. We can develop technologies to discover and reach the less-accessible reserves or make use of previously-unusable deposits like oil shales, but we will reach a point where the expense of extraction and refinement won’t justify the effort.

            And energy dependency on a scarce, largely foreign-produced resource is poor national security practice.

          • avatar Mahulda Fite says:

            Oil is a “scarce, largely foreign-produced resource” in this country because of choices made by our government. Regulations and unwillingness to let oil companies drill here is one of the main reasons we are dependent on foreign sources.  Oil is not scarce–and we have plenty of it in this country. At present, so-called “green, renewable” sources are not feasible so oil is critical for our economy to survive and thrive. Technologies have and will continue to advance and improve allowing removal of oil reserves that were once too costly to access.

          • avatar Lila says:

            Energy is a huge national security issue and relying too heavily on oil is not the smart way to go.

            I have cited hard facts and the best current predictions from people who make this their full-time business, and whose mission it is to ensure sufficient energy supplies to their member countries, including the US.

            Don’t know what else to say here, so…

            – Fin –

          • avatar Mahulda Fite says:

            ” relying too heavily on oil is not the smart way to go. “–Do you have an alternative at present for oil? If you do, share. Right now we have no choice but to rely on oil–without it, our economy collapses.  Alternative fuels would be great, but as far as I know, there is no substitute currently.

  15. avatar Anne Whitacre says:

    I listen to Bachman and my reaction is “you have to be ——– kidding me.”  no matter how many times someone says it, raising a bunch of kids is not the same as having executive experience where you have to cooperate with people and forge a compromise.  I do not want another uneducated person who thinks that their faith in God is going to substitute for their being able to read a book or a briefing paper and come to a rational conclusion.  I don’t want another president who has never traveled outside the country, never considered another viewpoint or never lived in another culture.  One Dubya was enough; we do not need the female version.

  16. avatar Deborah Key says:

    Phyllis, just so you know, I’m working “our lady of the teabags” into a conversation at the earliest opportunity.

    Jennie, my religion welcomes homosexuals.  God loves everybody, no exceptions.   If people want to be “re-educated”  well, I don’t see the point. 

    When I first learned of Michelle Bachman, I was intrigued but the more I know, the less I like. 

    • avatar Baby Snooks says:

      Jennie, my religion welcomes homosexuals.  God loves everybody, no exceptions.   If people want to be “re-educated”  well, I don’t see the point. 


      What religion is that?  The three Abrahamic religions are quite clear in their teachings that homosexuality is, as it is put in I believe Leviticus, an abomination.  Is your religion creating a new god with new teachings? Or merely ignoring the teachings it doesn’t like?

      The Curse of Ham was a “wake-up” call for me early on. But what really opened my eyes was realizing that some were embracing a god who had clearly cursed them. And who now, of course, curse others. Quoting the same Bible others used, and still use, to curse them.

      I believe in god. Just not the god man created, and keeps creating, in his image. 


      • avatar KarenR says:

        Have you ever looked into how man’s politics have shaped the Bible as we know it today?

        Do you know that the reason the Pilgrims came to the New World in the first place was because they were not allowed to use the Bible of their choice in England?

        Haven’t you ever wondered what’s “authorized” about an Authorized King James version of the Bible?

        • avatar Count Snarkula says:

          @Karen R – I know your comment was not addressed to me, but yes, I wonder about all those things.

        • avatar Baby Snooks says:

          You can look at the history of the “Church of Rome” to see the politics involved with religion.  And the politics continued with each and every “protestant” schism.  If you look closely at that history, the “Church of Rome” itself was founded through schism within the original church which we know today as the Eastern Orthodox Church. The schism basially was over “authority” which was the right of a “vicar of Christ” to determine how other men should live. And die. Some of the world’s worst “holocausts” were at the hands of this “vicar of Christ” and the “Church of Rome.” 

          After the scandal of the pedophile priests, particularly the focus on the homosexual priests rather than the homosexual and the heterosexual priests, I have to wonder about those who continue to support the “Church of Rome” and its hypocrisy.  But of course it’s a hypocrisy to be found in all the churches in all the religions.

          A hypocrisy that is to be found in politics as well and can be summed up best with the prhase “Do as I say, not as I do.”

          Man created god in his image for one reason. To have power over other men.  The modern god anyway.  Which perhaps is why so many are searching for spirituality rather than piety.  The piety often the root of most evil.

  17. avatar mickie1 says:

    Michelle Bachman is a horses ass !!! Why is it the Republican Party can only have candidates for president of the untied states that are off their rocker !!! Let’s face it we can thank John McCain for that with sicking Sara Palin on us. But this Bachman woman is a dangerous person—dont people see that !!!! Her views on social issues are so ultra conservative like gay marriage, gays in general and even porn !!! Wake up people !!! This woman ties her ultra Christian beliefs with the laws of this great land. Has she not read her history about the separation of church and state ??? And lets face it she only appeals the the wacky fringe of the Republican Party and those wacky Tea Party people — which by the way seem to consist of aging white people !!!! I don’t see this women winning the nomination or the election because there are not enough people who are conservative enough to vote for her !!! Lets face it will the African-Americans vote her NO !!! will the Hispanics vote her NO !!! Will gays vote her ??? HELL NO !!! Will right minded independents vote for her NO!!! Who will theses folks vote for— and ME too— BARACK OBAMA !!! She is not going to win. NO FREAKIN’ WAY !!!! But we should all be afraid. Let me say it one more time— WE SHOULD ALL BE AFRAID !!!! This woman is dangerous !!!! MItt Romney would be no better or no worse—- He’s just a carpetbagger ….but that’s another story

  18. avatar Count Snarkula says:

    “We need to have profound compassion for the people who are dealing with the very real issue of sexual dysfunction in their life, and sexual identity disorders. This is a very real issue. It’s not funny, it’s sad. Any of you who have members of your family that are in the lifestyle-we have a member of our family that is. This is not funny. It’s a very sad life. It’s part of Satan, I think, to say this is gay. It’s anything but gay.” – Michelle Bachmann